Hi all -
Currently, Gendergap-l only has two active moderators - in the past, we've usually had at least three. After talking with Liz, we'd both like to bring on at least one additional active moderator. Please drop us a note if you'd be interested in taking on such a role. It's worth knowing ahead of time that at times moderating the list can involve significant emotional labor; that said, moderating the list also allows you the chance to more actively help make positive change in the environment of the list.
In the past, many productive discussions have occurred on this list, but over time the number of such discussions has fallen greatly, and a lot of valuable contributors now either contribute far less frequently than they used to, or have just outright unsubscribed. We think that a lot of this is related to how the list has been (or rather, mostly how it has barely been) moderated in the past. Historically, there's been a lot of reluctance among mods, both past and present, to take aggressive mod actions - this is a Wikimedia list, and the background that comes with that generally stigmatizes the idea of significant moderation.
We feel like the reluctance on the part of Gendergap mods to strongly actively moderate in a way that tries to ensure that the list is a safe space for contributors has been a significant error - a balance has to be maintained between liberty and hospitality (to borrow some terminology from Sumana's keynote at WikiConference USA [1],) and we don't feel like we've gotten that balance right in the past. To be clear, since I'm the longest standing gendergap mod (besides for Sue, who generally doesn't take part in moderation discussions,) a lot of what I mean in the former sentence is that I have personally made significant errors that have contributed substantially to the general feeling that this list is not a safe space for contributors.
Moving forward, we'd like to change how we moderate the list in order to try to make it a list where contributors consistently feel safe in contributing. Over the next few days, the mods will be having an internal discussion about how we think we can best go about doing this, and we'd also like to start a discussion on the broader list about how we can best go about ensuring that this is a safe and productive list while staying in line with the general values of the Wikimedia movement.
This email is intentionally sparse on details - mostly because we haven't talked amongst ourselves enough to have a solid grasp of what the details will look like, and also because we don't feel we can fully form a new moderation policy without feedback from list members. There are a couple things we're already more or less sure of. The moderation won't be draconian; we understand that everyone makes mistakes and think that most mistakes represent learning opportunities - we aren't looking for reasons to kick people off the list. At the same time, members whose behavior consistently (or in some circumstances, presence) on the list makes other members feel unsafe or we feel are inhibitory to open, safe, productive discussion occurring will not remain on the list. As list mods, we haven't followed the list as closely as we should have in the past; we will be in the future.
And, as a major change, we will also be adopting an explicit set of community guidelines, which we haven't had in the past. Within the pretty immediate future, we'll be posting a starting set of guidelines on an appropriate wiki that will incorporate our thoughts, the thoughts of list members, and best practices adopted from other groups (likely including significant content from Geek Feminism's example statement of purpose for communities including men - [2].) Once we have draft guidelines up, we'll be inviting all list members to contribute to them, although the mod team (including any new mods we recruit) will have the final say over their contents. They'll also only be guidelines - we won't take action over everything that violates their letter, and equally, we may take action on some things that aren't included in the guidelines as they come up - we just intend them to serve as a basic template for moving forward.
Best, Kevin Gorman For the moderators
[1] http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Sumana_Harihareswara_keynote [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Statement_of_purpose/Communities_includin...
I'm not sure if I would agree with the word 'error', Wikipedia happens in a context, which is where all these discussions began, with the cautionary tale article about Quora http://www.zdnet.com/quoras-misogyny-problem-a-cautionary-tale-7000030762/
Away from Wikipedia I'm a member of the No More Page 3 campaign trying to get rid of the topless glamour model photo which is published in Murdoch's UK Sun newspaper. The petition reads: "We are asking David Dinsmore to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper. We are asking very nicely. Please, David. No More Page 3. etc." The petition is approaching 200,000 signatures and there are NMP3 t-shirts, media attention but our Facebook page gets hit by trolls. Blocking is a last resort by admins but it becomes inevitable. The MRA has set up a Laughing at No More Page 3 Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/Laughing-at-No-more-page-3/262437737259691 page and take pictures / posts from NMP3's page and re-post them with personally insulting comments. When you click on the names of those posting comments their other "liked" groups invariably include various humanist societies and Dawkins Foundation.
I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if Sarah was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?
The same website has an article suggesting the compulsory sterilizing of women before they reach child-bearing age so they are unable to take the escape hatch 'soft-option' of exiting the workplace to raise them http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/workplace-inequality-when-one-side-has-an-...
They group are becoming increasingly well organized and have just finished their first conference in Detroit http://www.avoiceformen.com/international-conference-on-mens-issues-detroit-...
Wikipedia and society as a whole need to recognise the shift in sand and what a growing threat groups like these are.
Marie
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:28:49 -0700 From: kgorman@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Hi all - Currently, Gendergap-l only has two active moderators - in the past, we've usually had at least three. After talking with Liz, we'd both like to bring on at least one additional active moderator. Please drop us a note if you'd be interested in taking on such a role. It's worth knowing ahead of time that at times moderating the list can involve significant emotional labor; that said, moderating the list also allows you the chance to more actively help make positive change in the environment of the list.
In the past, many productive discussions have occurred on this list, but over time the number of such discussions has fallen greatly, and a lot of valuable contributors now either contribute far less frequently than they used to, or have just outright unsubscribed. We think that a lot of this is related to how the list has been (or rather, mostly how it has barely been) moderated in the past. Historically, there's been a lot of reluctance among mods, both past and present, to take aggressive mod actions - this is a Wikimedia list, and the background that comes with that generally stigmatizes the idea of significant moderation.
We feel like the reluctance on the part of Gendergap mods to strongly actively moderate in a way that tries to ensure that the list is a safe space for contributors has been a significant error - a balance has to be maintained between liberty and hospitality (to borrow some terminology from Sumana's keynote at WikiConference USA [1],) and we don't feel like we've gotten that balance right in the past. To be clear, since I'm the longest standing gendergap mod (besides for Sue, who generally doesn't take part in moderation discussions,) a lot of what I mean in the former sentence is that I have personally made significant errors that have contributed substantially to the general feeling that this list is not a safe space for contributors.
Moving forward, we'd like to change how we moderate the list in order to try to make it a list where contributors consistently feel safe in contributing. Over the next few days, the mods will be having an internal discussion about how we think we can best go about doing this, and we'd also like to start a discussion on the broader list about how we can best go about ensuring that this is a safe and productive list while staying in line with the general values of the Wikimedia movement.
This email is intentionally sparse on details - mostly because we haven't talked amongst ourselves enough to have a solid grasp of what the details will look like, and also because we don't feel we can fully form a new moderation policy without feedback from list members. There are a couple things we're already more or less sure of. The moderation won't be draconian; we understand that everyone makes mistakes and think that most mistakes represent learning opportunities - we aren't looking for reasons to kick people off the list. At the same time, members whose behavior consistently (or in some circumstances, presence) on the list makes other members feel unsafe or we feel are inhibitory to open, safe, productive discussion occurring will not remain on the list. As list mods, we haven't followed the list as closely as we should have in the past; we will be in the future.
And, as a major change, we will also be adopting an explicit set of community guidelines, which we haven't had in the past. Within the pretty immediate future, we'll be posting a starting set of guidelines on an appropriate wiki that will incorporate our thoughts, the thoughts of list members, and best practices adopted from other groups (likely including significant content from Geek Feminism's example statement of purpose for communities including men - [2].) Once we have draft guidelines up, we'll be inviting all list members to contribute to them, although the mod team (including any new mods we recruit) will have the final say over their contents. They'll also only be guidelines - we won't take action over everything that violates their letter, and equally, we may take action on some things that aren't included in the guidelines as they come up - we just intend them to serve as a basic template for moving forward.
Best,Kevin Gorman For the moderators [1] http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Sumana_Harihareswara_keynote [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Statement_of_purpose/Communities_includin...
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi Marie -
Given the fact that you're talking about men's rights activists, by Sarah, I assume you mean Sarah Stierch? Both Sarah and myself (we were some of the earlier Wikipedians to really infuriate MRA's) suffered a good bit of harassment at various points as a result of our engagement with them. We're definitely far from the only people to have experienced harassment by MRA's or various other groups, and both myself, Sarah, and a large number of other contributors have experienced at least some harassment severe enough that I've thought for some time that the Wikimedia Foundation should attempt to create some sort of contributor support system (as was most recently brought up as an idea by Lane Raspberry of WP:MED.) None of it was at all fun for me to handle, and some of it took significant labor to deal with - both emotional labor and labor as in actually having to explain to targeted associates of mine the back story behind the calls and emails they were getting - and I have significant systemic privilege that makes the same set of situations much easier and less threatening to deal with than many other people do. I agree that harassment of contributors, by fringe elements of the men's rights movement as well as other fringe groups is a serious problem and that both the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation need to come up with a better way of triaging and minimizing the harm that it causes our contributors.
That said, I do want to be clear in saying that Sarah, to the best of my knowledge, has never been suspended from a position of any sort for making off-wiki comments. She was a moderator of this list for quite some time, but eventually stepped down because this can at times be a very very very very draining list to moderate - if she ever wanted to become a mod again here, I'd give her a mod bit back in a heart beat, but I really doubt she will ever want to again. She's still an active contributor (and administrator) on the English Wikipedia, and still hosts talks and editathons about our movement's demographic gaps pretty regularly. She does no longer work for the WMF, but the fact that she no longer works there isn't a result of her political views or offsite comments, and a great number of current WMF staffers still have tremendous respect for her.
I was near the pre-scheduled end-date of an internship at the Wikimedia Foundation right around the time that Sarah and I riled up men's rights activists for the first time (it's been a number of years at this point) through making the article about their movement more in compliance with ENWP's encyclopedic content policies than it previously had been. It was definitely an issue that came up with me in the office that week (partly because it had made Jezebel; partly because people were contacting the office,) and I will say that I don't think I can fault the behavior of a single WMF staff member regarding the situation. They were tremendously more accomodating than I can imagine most other workplaces being in such circumstances - the rest of my time there included a large number of people repeatedly making sure that I was doing okay/checking if I needed anything/thanking me for publicly standing up for what I thought was right.
I don't want to dissect past situations in great detail, but I do think the mod team has made significant errors in how we've chosen to moderate the list in the past (and I accept a plurality if not an outright majority of blame for that,) that was significantly detrimental to fostering a free, open, and safe environment where conversations related to the purpose of the list could occur. We can't change the past, but hopefully we'll be able to help guide the list in a more beneficial direction in the future.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if I would agree with the word 'error', Wikipedia happens in a context, which is where all these discussions began, with the cautionary tale article about Quora http://www.zdnet.com/quoras-misogyny-problem-a-cautionary-tale-7000030762/
Away from Wikipedia I'm a member of the No More Page 3 campaign trying to get rid of the topless glamour model photo which is published in Murdoch's UK Sun newspaper. The petition reads: "We are asking David Dinsmore to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper. We are asking very nicely. Please, David. No More Page 3. etc." The petition is approaching 200,000 signatures and there are NMP3 t-shirts, media attention but our Facebook page gets hit by trolls. Blocking is a last resort by admins but it becomes inevitable. The MRA has set up a Laughing at No More Page 3 Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/Laughing-at-No-more-page-3/262437737259691 page and take pictures / posts from NMP3's page and re-post them with personally insulting comments. When you click on the names of those posting comments their other "liked" groups invariably include various humanist societies and Dawkins Foundation.
I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if Sarah was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?
The same website has an article suggesting the compulsory sterilizing of women before they reach child-bearing age so they are unable to take the escape hatch 'soft-option' of exiting the workplace to raise them http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/workplace-inequality-when-one-side-has-an-...
They group are becoming increasingly well organized and have just finished their first conference in Detroit http://www.avoiceformen.com/international-conference-on-mens-issues-detroit-...
Wikipedia and society as a whole need to recognise the shift in sand and what a growing threat groups like these are.
Marie
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:28:49 -0700 From: kgorman@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Hi all -
Currently, Gendergap-l only has two active moderators - in the past, we've usually had at least three. After talking with Liz, we'd both like to bring on at least one additional active moderator. Please drop us a note if you'd be interested in taking on such a role. It's worth knowing ahead of time that at times moderating the list can involve significant emotional labor; that said, moderating the list also allows you the chance to more actively help make positive change in the environment of the list.
In the past, many productive discussions have occurred on this list, but over time the number of such discussions has fallen greatly, and a lot of valuable contributors now either contribute far less frequently than they used to, or have just outright unsubscribed. We think that a lot of this is related to how the list has been (or rather, mostly how it has barely been) moderated in the past. Historically, there's been a lot of reluctance among mods, both past and present, to take aggressive mod actions - this is a Wikimedia list, and the background that comes with that generally stigmatizes the idea of significant moderation.
We feel like the reluctance on the part of Gendergap mods to strongly actively moderate in a way that tries to ensure that the list is a safe space for contributors has been a significant error - a balance has to be maintained between liberty and hospitality (to borrow some terminology from Sumana's keynote at WikiConference USA [1],) and we don't feel like we've gotten that balance right in the past. To be clear, since I'm the longest standing gendergap mod (besides for Sue, who generally doesn't take part in moderation discussions,) a lot of what I mean in the former sentence is that I have personally made significant errors that have contributed substantially to the general feeling that this list is not a safe space for contributors.
Moving forward, we'd like to change how we moderate the list in order to try to make it a list where contributors consistently feel safe in contributing. Over the next few days, the mods will be having an internal discussion about how we think we can best go about doing this, and we'd also like to start a discussion on the broader list about how we can best go about ensuring that this is a safe and productive list while staying in line with the general values of the Wikimedia movement.
This email is intentionally sparse on details - mostly because we haven't talked amongst ourselves enough to have a solid grasp of what the details will look like, and also because we don't feel we can fully form a new moderation policy without feedback from list members. There are a couple things we're already more or less sure of. The moderation won't be draconian; we understand that everyone makes mistakes and think that most mistakes represent learning opportunities - we aren't looking for reasons to kick people off the list. At the same time, members whose behavior consistently (or in some circumstances, presence) on the list makes other members feel unsafe or we feel are inhibitory to open, safe, productive discussion occurring will not remain on the list. As list mods, we haven't followed the list as closely as we should have in the past; we will be in the future.
And, as a major change, we will also be adopting an explicit set of community guidelines, which we haven't had in the past. Within the pretty immediate future, we'll be posting a starting set of guidelines on an appropriate wiki that will incorporate our thoughts, the thoughts of list members, and best practices adopted from other groups (likely including significant content from Geek Feminism's example statement of purpose for communities including men - [2].) Once we have draft guidelines up, we'll be inviting all list members to contribute to them, although the mod team (including any new mods we recruit) will have the final say over their contents. They'll also only be guidelines - we won't take action over everything that violates their letter, and equally, we may take action on some things that aren't included in the guidelines as they come up - we just intend them to serve as a basic template for moving forward.
Best, Kevin Gorman For the moderators
[1] http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Sumana_Harihareswara_keynote [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Statement_of_purpose/Communities_includin...
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi Kevin,
My apologies it was Carol Moore responding to Sarah Stierch earlier on, I mentioned it from memory, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html
This was was the quote, which I ought to have looked it up first:
I was once blocked for a week for asking an editor whether his overwhelming history of editing in articles about bondage of females was related to his obvious and annoying harassment of me on a noticeboard, after which I mentioned the issue on the Wikia Feminism page which I thought was a part of Wikipedia (duh). The latter evidently was the bigger "no no".
As for the top-down thing, there's an old joke I know:
A man's driving along and he pulls up near a field and asks the farmer for directions, and the farmer says, "Well I wouldn't start from here if I were you."
I was really just musing that there have been so few women editors for such a long period of time on Wikipedia that the structure of administrators / senior administrators / foundations / boards etc. is quite striking. If Wikipedia had its time over with 50:50 male to female ratio I wonder if it would look quite like that.
Marie
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:11:49 -0700 From: kgorman@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Hi Marie - Given the fact that you're talking about men's rights activists, by Sarah, I assume you mean Sarah Stierch? Both Sarah and myself (we were some of the earlier Wikipedians to really infuriate MRA's) suffered a good bit of harassment at various points as a result of our engagement with them. We're definitely far from the only people to have experienced harassment by MRA's or various other groups, and both myself, Sarah, and a large number of other contributors have experienced at least some harassment severe enough that I've thought for some time that the Wikimedia Foundation should attempt to create some sort of contributor support system (as was most recently brought up as an idea by Lane Raspberry of WP:MED.) None of it was at all fun for me to handle, and some of it took significant labor to deal with - both emotional labor and labor as in actually having to explain to targeted associates of mine the back story behind the calls and emails they were getting - and I have significant systemic privilege that makes the same set of situations much easier and less threatening to deal with than many other people do. I agree that harassment of contributors, by fringe elements of the men's rights movement as well as other fringe groups is a serious problem and that both the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation need to come up with a better way of triaging and minimizing the harm that it causes our contributors.
That said, I do want to be clear in saying that Sarah, to the best of my knowledge, has never been suspended from a position of any sort for making off-wiki comments. She was a moderator of this list for quite some time, but eventually stepped down because this can at times be a very very very very draining list to moderate - if she ever wanted to become a mod again here, I'd give her a mod bit back in a heart beat, but I really doubt she will ever want to again. She's still an active contributor (and administrator) on the English Wikipedia, and still hosts talks and editathons about our movement's demographic gaps pretty regularly. She does no longer work for the WMF, but the fact that she no longer works there isn't a result of her political views or offsite comments, and a great number of current WMF staffers still have tremendous respect for her.
I was near the pre-scheduled end-date of an internship at the Wikimedia Foundation right around the time that Sarah and I riled up men's rights activists for the first time (it's been a number of years at this point) through making the article about their movement more in compliance with ENWP's encyclopedic content policies than it previously had been. It was definitely an issue that came up with me in the office that week (partly because it had made Jezebel; partly because people were contacting the office,) and I will say that I don't think I can fault the behavior of a single WMF staff member regarding the situation. They were tremendously more accomodating than I can imagine most other workplaces being in such circumstances - the rest of my time there included a large number of people repeatedly making sure that I was doing okay/checking if I needed anything/thanking me for publicly standing up for what I thought was right.
I don't want to dissect past situations in great detail, but I do think the mod team has made significant errors in how we've chosen to moderate the list in the past (and I accept a plurality if not an outright majority of blame for that,) that was significantly detrimental to fostering a free, open, and safe environment where conversations related to the purpose of the list could occur. We can't change the past, but hopefully we'll be able to help guide the list in a more beneficial direction in the future.
Best,Kevin Gorman
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if I would agree with the word 'error', Wikipedia happens in a context, which is where all these discussions began, with the cautionary tale article about Quora http://www.zdnet.com/quoras-misogyny-problem-a-cautionary-tale-7000030762/
Away from Wikipedia I'm a member of the No More Page 3 campaign trying to get rid of the topless glamour model photo which is published in Murdoch's UK Sun newspaper. The petition reads: "We are asking David Dinsmore to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper. We are asking very nicely. Please, David. No More Page 3. etc."
The petition is approaching 200,000 signatures and there are NMP3 t-shirts, media attention but our Facebook page gets hit by trolls. Blocking is a last resort by admins but it becomes inevitable. The MRA has set up a Laughing at No More Page 3 Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/Laughing-at-No-more-page-3/262437737259691 page and take pictures / posts from NMP3's page and re-post them with personally insulting comments. When you click on the names of those posting comments their other "liked" groups invariably include various humanist societies and Dawkins Foundation.
I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if Sarah was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?
The same website has an article suggesting the compulsory sterilizing of women before they reach child-bearing age so they are unable to take the escape hatch 'soft-option' of exiting the workplace to raise them http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/workplace-inequality-when-one-side-has-an-...
They group are becoming increasingly well organized and have just finished their first conference in Detroit http://www.avoiceformen.com/international-conference-on-mens-issues-detroit-...
Wikipedia and society as a whole need to recognise the shift in sand and what a growing threat groups like these are.
Marie
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:28:49 -0700 From: kgorman@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Hi all -
Currently, Gendergap-l only has two active moderators - in the past, we've usually had at least three. After talking with Liz, we'd both like to bring on at least one additional active moderator. Please drop us a note if you'd be interested in taking on such a role. It's worth knowing ahead of time that at times moderating the list can involve significant emotional labor; that said, moderating the list also allows you the chance to more actively help make positive change in the environment of the list.
In the past, many productive discussions have occurred on this list, but over time the number of such discussions has fallen greatly, and a lot of valuable contributors now either contribute far less frequently than they used to, or have just outright unsubscribed. We think that a lot of this is related to how the list has been (or rather, mostly how it has barely been) moderated in the past. Historically, there's been a lot of reluctance among mods, both past and present, to take aggressive mod actions - this is a Wikimedia list, and the background that comes with that generally stigmatizes the idea of significant moderation.
We feel like the reluctance on the part of Gendergap mods to strongly actively moderate in a way that tries to ensure that the list is a safe space for contributors has been a significant error - a balance has to be maintained between liberty and hospitality (to borrow some terminology from Sumana's keynote at WikiConference USA [1],) and we don't feel like we've gotten that balance right in the past. To be clear, since I'm the longest standing gendergap mod (besides for Sue, who generally doesn't take part in moderation discussions,) a lot of what I mean in the former sentence is that I have personally made significant errors that have contributed substantially to the general feeling that this list is not a safe space for contributors.
Moving forward, we'd like to change how we moderate the list in order to try to make it a list where contributors consistently feel safe in contributing. Over the next few days, the mods will be having an internal discussion about how we think we can best go about doing this, and we'd also like to start a discussion on the broader list about how we can best go about ensuring that this is a safe and productive list while staying in line with the general values of the Wikimedia movement.
This email is intentionally sparse on details - mostly because we haven't talked amongst ourselves enough to have a solid grasp of what the details will look like, and also because we don't feel we can fully form a new moderation policy without feedback from list members. There are a couple things we're already more or less sure of. The moderation won't be draconian; we understand that everyone makes mistakes and think that most mistakes represent learning opportunities - we aren't looking for reasons to kick people off the list. At the same time, members whose behavior consistently (or in some circumstances, presence) on the list makes other members feel unsafe or we feel are inhibitory to open, safe, productive discussion occurring will not remain on the list. As list mods, we haven't followed the list as closely as we should have in the past; we will be in the future.
And, as a major change, we will also be adopting an explicit set of community guidelines, which we haven't had in the past. Within the pretty immediate future, we'll be posting a starting set of guidelines on an appropriate wiki that will incorporate our thoughts, the thoughts of list members, and best practices adopted from other groups (likely including significant content from Geek Feminism's example statement of purpose for communities including men - [2].) Once we have draft guidelines up, we'll be inviting all list members to contribute to them, although the mod team (including any new mods we recruit) will have the final say over their contents. They'll also only be guidelines - we won't take action over everything that violates their letter, and equally, we may take action on some things that aren't included in the guidelines as they come up - we just intend them to serve as a basic template for moving forward.
Best,Kevin Gorman
For the moderators [1] http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Sumana_Harihareswara_keynote
[2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Statement_of_purpose/Communities_includin...
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
In the ballpark of what is going on in an En.Wikipedia category discussion at the moment; Category:Massacres of menhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_J... and Category:Violence against menhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_J...
From: eiryel@hotmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 18:06:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Wikipedia and society as a whole need to recognise the shift in sand and what a growing threat groups like these are.
Marie
-----Original Message----- From: Marie Earley [mailto:eiryel@hotmail.com] Sent: 29 June 2014 14:07 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
"I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi p/ which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if Sarah was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?"
----- Reply -----
I don't think it's fair to assume that it's /permissible/. Perhaps it just hasn't yet been brought to anyone's attention, or perhaps it's impossible to determine which Wikipedia editors are writing these things.
Powers &8^]
Okay, 'permissible' was perhaps the wrong word to use, 'possible' was probably more appropriate, but I really do not understand this language of "reporting" and "going to the ANI". If I got into an argument with one of these men it is the last thing I would do.
Posting something like the compulsory sterilization article on a website would get you jailed in the UK under hate speech law (example: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/facebook-troll-jailed... ).
I wouldn't take on one of these men on a talk page or anywhere else. I wouldn't try to sit around and have a reasonable discussion with anyone who mugged me either.
Marie
From: LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:38:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
-----Original Message-----
From: Marie Earley [mailto:eiryel@hotmail.com]
Sent: 29 June 2014 14:07
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
"I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if Sarah was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?"
----- Reply -----
I don't think it's fair to assume that it's /permissible/. Perhaps it just hasn't yet been brought to anyone's attention, or perhaps it's impossible to determine which Wikipedia editors are writing these things.
Powers &8^]
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I've never been "suspended" (whatever that means) by anyone or anything. If you're talking about me..? Before I'm the victim of any BLP violations ;)
I do know sometimes get Sarah (Slim Virgin) and myself confused (which I take as a compliment :) )
I was an early moderator of this list, moderated it for quite sometime, and left after burn out and the inability to handle my own frustrations on mailing lists. Getting called names repeatedly doesn't help, either. I now moderate some low traffic/low drama lists for the community. I am grateful to everyone who moderates this list today and has in the past.
Men's rights activists are scary people. (They'd say the same about me, I'm sure.) They have contributed to problems in my personal and professional life for the past few years. I hate to use the phrase "victim" for my own experiences, but, I have truly been a victim of their words, actions, and such. (and they would say the same thing about "us feminists")
Let's just say being a vocal active feminist in the world of Wikipedia is not easy. I'm not legally able at this time to talk about some of the experiences I've had, especially in recent months, that have been been instigated by men's rights folks and active misogynists in the Wikimedia community.
Thank you to everyone who continues to fight those fights on wiki. I monitor a few pages now and deeply appreciate the work that you all do.
Onwards and upwards,
-Sarah
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Okay, 'permissible' was perhaps the wrong word to use, 'possible' was probably more appropriate, but I really do not understand this language of "reporting" and "going to the ANI". If I got into an argument with one of these men it is the last thing I would do.
Posting something like the compulsory sterilization article on a website would get you jailed in the UK under hate speech law (example: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/facebook-troll-jailed... ).
I wouldn't take on one of these men on a talk page or anywhere else. I wouldn't try to sit around and have a reasonable discussion with anyone who mugged me either.
Marie
From: LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:38:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
-----Original Message----- *From:* Marie Earley [mailto:eiryel@hotmail.com] *Sent:* 29 June 2014 14:07 *To:* gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
"I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if Sarah was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?"
----- Reply -----
I don't think it's fair to assume that it's /permissible/. Perhaps it just hasn't yet been brought to anyone's attention, or perhaps it's impossible to determine which Wikipedia editors are writing these things.
Powers &8^]
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Jun 30, 2014 10:27 PM, "Sarah Stierch" sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I've never been "suspended" (whatever that means) by anyone or anything.
If you're talking about me..? Before I'm the victim of any BLP violations ;)
I do know sometimes get Sarah (Slim Virgin) and myself confused (which I
take as a compliment :) )
For the record, the quote in question was SlimVirgin.
-Jeremy
Ah ok, thanks Jeremy - sorry to waste peoples time! On Jun 30, 2014 7:46 PM, "Jeremy Baron" jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014 10:27 PM, "Sarah Stierch" sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I've never been "suspended" (whatever that means) by anyone or anything.
If you're talking about me..? Before I'm the victim of any BLP violations ;)
I do know sometimes get Sarah (Slim Virgin) and myself confused (which I
take as a compliment :) )
For the record, the quote in question was SlimVirgin.
-Jeremy
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014 10:27 PM, "Sarah Stierch" sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I've never been "suspended" (whatever that means) by anyone or anything.
If you're talking about me..? Before I'm the victim of any BLP violations ;)
I do know sometimes get Sarah (Slim Virgin) and myself confused (which I
take as a compliment :) )
For the record, the quote in question was SlimVirgin.
-Jeremy
Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall someone on this list saying that
someone called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's meant) for an off-wiki comment. (Or something like that; I can't find the original.) I can't think of how that might apply to me, and Sarah Stierch has said it doesn't apply to her.
Sarah
On Jun 30, 2014 11:14 PM, "Sarah" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall someone on this list saying that
someone called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's meant) for an off-wiki comment. (Or something like that; I can't find the original.) I can't think of how that might apply to me, and Sarah Stierch has said it doesn't apply to her.
See this message from earlier on this thread:
On Jun 29, 2014 8:30 PM Eastern, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
My apologies it was Carol Moore responding to Sarah Stierch earlier on, I
mentioned it from memory, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html
If you follow Marie's link and then dig up the original message quoted at the link from "Sarah" you'll find it was SlimVirgin not Sarah Stierch (Marie apparently misattributed).
I haven't read all the mails, just did a bit of digging.
-Jeremy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014 11:14 PM, "Sarah" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall someone on this list saying that
someone called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's meant) for an off-wiki comment. (Or something like that; I can't find the original.) I can't think of how that might apply to me, and Sarah Stierch has said it doesn't apply to her.
See this message from earlier on this thread:
On Jun 29, 2014 8:30 PM Eastern, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
My apologies it was Carol Moore responding to Sarah Stierch earlier on,
I mentioned it from memory, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html
If you follow Marie's link and then dig up the original message quoted at the link from "Sarah" you'll find it was SlimVirgin not Sarah Stierch (Marie apparently misattributed).
I haven't read all the mails, just did a bit of digging .
Okay, thanks, Jeremy. I don't follow what it's about, but the original comment wasn't made by me or about me, and the comment that seemed to be about Sarah Stierch was a misunderstanding.
Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't I. I didn't realize the list had two Sarahs on it.
Third time lucky....
In a discussion about off-Wiki mentions of editors, I was making a comparison between Carol Moore's suspension which she mentioned here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html in answer to SlimVirgin (aka Sarah), in which Carol said:
"questioning behavior too aggressively off wikipedia evidently remains a no no. I was once blocked for a week for asking an editor whether his overwhelming history of editing in articles about bondage of females was related to his obvious and annoying harassment of me on a noticeboard, after which I mentioned the issue on the Wikia Feminism page which I thought was a part of Wikipedia (duh). The latter evidently was the bigger "no no"."
...and some of the stuff in an article on A Voice for Men's website.
The third paragraph of this message http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004409.html therefore should have read (correction in capital letters):
I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if CAROL was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?
And LtPowers point that Wikipedia may simply not know is correct. Perhaps, editors just have to run the gauntlet / try and recruit more women / be a bit more pro-active about looking for and reporting off-wiki activities which break the rules and not just leave it to moderators. With that in mind I have reported the article to WP:ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide...
Marie
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:31:42 -0700 From: slimvirgin@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014 11:14 PM, "Sarah" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall someone on this list saying that someone called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's meant) for an off-wiki comment. (Or something like that; I can't find the original.) I can't think of how that might apply to me, and Sarah Stierch has said it doesn't apply to her.
See this message from earlier on this thread: On Jun 29, 2014 8:30 PM Eastern, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
My apologies it was Carol Moore responding to Sarah Stierch earlier on, I mentioned it from memory, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html
If you follow Marie's link and then dig up the original message quoted at the link from "Sarah" you'll find it was SlimVirgin not Sarah Stierch (Marie apparently misattributed). I haven't read all the mails, just did a bit of digging.
Okay, thanks, Jeremy. I don't follow what it's about, but the original comment wasn't made by me or about me, and the comment that seemed to be about Sarah Stierch was a misunderstanding.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't I. I didn't realize the list had two Sarahs on it.
More than two I'm sure :-)
Thank you Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_a_pig%27s_ear_of
-Jeremy
Oh. Oh my. You mean that there's a name besides "Emily" that people share? ;-)
Back to your normal programming.
From, Emily
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't I. I didn't realize the
list
had two Sarahs on it.
More than two I'm sure :-)
Thank you Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_a_pig%27s_ear_of
-Jeremy
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: the below, yes, i was blocked in a situation I thought was biased compared to other blocks I've seen. (I didn't mention that originally it was a six month block but the community of mostly guys thought that was grossly unfair and it was reduced to two weeks.)
However, in general wikipedia is not half as bad as the Men's rights site you mentioned. And in Wikipedia there are "Community Sanctions" on too much conflict in men's rights areas. In fact we just had some problems with an individual with that bias and he was reminded of the sanctions and was stopped.
In general women tend to avoid a lot of issues in the larger world because we don't like conflict. And that's understandable given that when guys do it with each other its considered a team sport. But when women jump in the middle, even if they know the rules (which we don't always), they usually are going to be given a harder time, expected to work harder and do better to get half the respect. That's the nature of the reality we are trying to change throughout the world and wikipedia is just one part of that larger world.
We don't have to accept all the rules but we can't change them unless we have some engagement. Even if the engagement is "these rules are male-created and reflect male values/attitudes/etc. and we want and equal say in creating the rules."
To understand Wikipedia dispute resolution you really have to study this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Except in the worst cases of abuse, you don't need to go to ANI. When the problem is guys ignoring you or reverting you too much or whatever it is they are doing cause they think they can get away with it (including if that reason is that you are female), there are a variety of options. I've used them all at different times, with more or less success depending on circumstances.
CM
On 7/1/2014 10:03 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't I. I didn't realize the list had two Sarahs on it.
Third time lucky....
In a discussion about off-Wiki mentions of editors, I was making a comparison between Carol Moore's suspension which she mentioned here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html in answer to SlimVirgin (aka Sarah), in which Carol said:
"questioning behavior too aggressively off wikipedia evidently
remains a no no. I was once blocked for a week for asking an editor whether his overwhelming history of editing in articles about bondage of females was related to his obvious and annoying harassment of me on a noticeboard, after which I mentioned the issue on the Wikia Feminism page which I thought was a part of Wikipedia (duh). The latter evidently was the bigger "no no"."
...and some of the stuff in an article on A Voice for Men's website.
The third paragraph of this message http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004409.html therefore should have read (correction in capital letters):
I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if CAROL was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?
And LtPowers point that Wikipedia may simply not know is correct. Perhaps, editors just have to run the gauntlet / try and recruit more women / be a bit more pro-active about looking for and reporting off-wiki activities which break the rules and not just leave it to moderators. With that in mind I have reported the article to WP:ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide...
Marie
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:31:42 -0700 From: slimvirgin@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jeremy Baron <jeremy@tuxmachine.com mailto:jeremy@tuxmachine.com> wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014 11:14 PM, "Sarah" <slimvirgin@gmail.com <mailto:slimvirgin@gmail.com>> wrote: > Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall someone on this list saying that someone called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's meant) for an off-wiki comment. (Or something like that; I can't find the original.) I can't think of how that might apply to me, and Sarah Stierch has said it doesn't apply to her. See this message from earlier on this thread: On Jun 29, 2014 8:30 PM Eastern, "Marie Earley" <eiryel@hotmail.com <mailto:eiryel@hotmail.com>> wrote: > My apologies it was Carol Moore responding to Sarah Stierch earlier on, I mentioned it from memory, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html If you follow Marie's link and then dig up the original message quoted at the link from "Sarah" you'll find it was SlimVirgin not Sarah Stierch (Marie apparently misattributed). I haven't read all the mails, just did a bit of digging .Okay, thanks, Jeremy. I don't follow what it's about, but the original comment wasn't made by me or about me, and the comment that seemed to be about Sarah Stierch was a misunderstanding.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I placed an ANI about the Voice for Men article and the subsequent comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_mu... The result being:
"We cannot take action for off-Wiki discussions like this. However, an "announcement" on WP:AN about something like this would have been a wise idead instead of ANI (but we all know now) - that we we can keep an eye on things. Attacking Wikipedia would be a detriment to their cause - so is potentially libelous statements about the Foundation's employees - dumb, dumb, dumb thing to do. However, by posting about it here, they know that we know. Be vigilant :-) "
I suppose what it does mean is that if insults are hurled about female editors off-wiki we can post announcements in WP:AN which begin,
"Based on this ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_mu... I to inform the community about..."
I also had some nice posts sent to me on my talk page.
P.S. I clicked on the link for WP:AN and found this little gem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Fly... Depressing but at least it's not all one-way traffic.
Marie
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:46:19 -0400 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Re: the below, yes, i was blocked in a situation I thought was biased compared to other blocks I've seen. (I didn't mention that originally it was a six month block but the community of mostly guys thought that was grossly unfair and it was reduced to two weeks.)
However, in general wikipedia is not half as bad as the Men's rights site you mentioned. And in Wikipedia there are "Community Sanctions" on too much conflict in men's rights areas. In fact we just had some problems with an individual with that bias and he was reminded of the sanctions and was stopped.
In general women tend to avoid a lot of issues in the larger world because we don't like conflict. And that's understandable given that when guys do it with each other its considered a team sport. But when women jump in the middle, even if they know the rules (which we don't always), they usually are going to be given a harder time, expected to work harder and do better to get half the respect. That's the nature of the reality we are trying to change throughout the world and wikipedia is just one part of that larger world.
We don't have to accept all the rules but we can't change them unless we have some engagement. Even if the engagement is "these rules are male-created and reflect male values/attitudes/etc. and we want and equal say in creating the rules."
To understand Wikipedia dispute resolution you really have to study this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Except in the worst cases of abuse, you don't need to go to ANI. When the problem is guys ignoring you or reverting you too much or whatever it is they are doing cause they think they can get away with it (including if that reason is that you are female), there are a variety of options. I've used them all at different times, with more or less success depending on circumstances.
CM
On 7/1/2014 10:03 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't I. I didn't realize the list had two Sarahs on it.
Third time lucky....
In a discussion about off-Wiki mentions of editors, I was making a comparison between Carol Moore's suspension which she mentioned here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html in answer to SlimVirgin (aka Sarah), in which Carol said:
> "questioning behavior too aggressively off wikipedia evidently remains a no no. I was once blocked for a week for asking an editor whether his overwhelming history of editing in articles about bondage of females was related to his obvious and annoying harassment of me on a noticeboard, after which I mentioned the issue on the Wikia Feminism page which I thought was a part of Wikipedia (duh). The latter evidently was the bigger "no no"."
...and some of the stuff in an article on A Voice for Men's website.
The third paragraph of this message http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004409.html therefore should have read (correction in capital letters):
> I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if CAROL was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?
And LtPowers point that Wikipedia may simply not know is correct. Perhaps, editors just have to run the gauntlet / try and recruit more women / be a bit more pro-active about looking for and reporting off-wiki activities which break the rules and not just leave it to moderators. With that in mind I have reported the article to WP:ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide...
Marie
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:31:42 -0700
From: slimvirgin@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014 11:14 PM, "Sarah" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
> Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall someone on this list saying that someone called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's meant) for an off-wiki comment. (Or something like that; I can't find the original.) I can't think of how that might apply to me, and Sarah Stierch has said it doesn't apply to her.
See this message from earlier on this thread:
On Jun 29, 2014 8:30 PM Eastern, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
> My apologies it was Carol Moore responding to Sarah Stierch earlier on, I mentioned it from memory, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html
If you follow Marie's link and then dig up the original message quoted at the link from "Sarah" you'll find it was SlimVirgin not Sarah Stierch (Marie apparently misattributed). I haven't read all the mails, just did a bit of digging .
Okay, thanks, Jeremy. I don't follow what it's about, but the original comment wasn't made by me or about me, and the comment that seemed to be about Sarah Stierch was a misunderstanding.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Unfortunately sites like AVfM and its ilk are something that we really do have limited ability to directly address on Wikipedia, even though it's something that has a direct effect on the retention of our editors. I've made AVfM and similar sites way more times than I would like to remember, as have a lot of other editors who work in the topic area, and many women editors who identify their gender in general. Even though people can usually mitigate the effect it has on Wikipedia's content, I don't think anyone has come up with a remotely effective way to mitigate the effect it has on the targeted editor. I know quite a few people who have left the projects over stuff like this, and can honestly say the only reason I'm still around is because of the number of good friends I've made on the projects who I can rely on for emotional* support when I need to, as well as the fact that I occupy a position of significant societal privilege that lets me take off-wiki harassment and threats less seriously than people who aren't in my position can.
I've thought for years that the problem of off-wiki harassment through this and other means is something that the Foundation will eventually need to come up with some solution that at least partly mitigates its effects, or we'll just understandably lose droves of good editors active in topic areas targeted by it. I don't know what that solution is, although I found Lane Raspberry's recent IdeaLab proposal ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Community_support_services) that tried to address the issue to be interesting, and would encourage anyone with interesting or novel ideas about how to potentially help with this kind of issue bring them up. I can't guarantee any eventual funding decision, but even if you have an idea that needs monetary support to work, I know this kind of thing is of both interest to the Foundation and of interest to volunteers serving on WMF grant-making advisory bodies. (Or alternately, even if you just have an idea but don't have the bandwidth to help carry out a project about it, I'd encourage you to bring it up, since other interested people can connect with you about it and help you refine it, or even just run with it themselves.)
Best, Kevin Gorman
*And sometimes, other significant forms of support too. Emily/Keilana, someone I've met in real life once, recently spent well over an hour trying to contact local emergency services for me in a situation when my roomates and I needed to do so but couldn't safely do so. After I had asked for help but before I had fully explained what was going on, my wifi blipped off, and she was literally calling me within six second of me poofing from the internet.. and then spent a huge amount of time and frustration trying to resolve the situation. I can't really put in to words the sort of feeling provoked by having a Wikimedian who I know almost entirely from online collaboration willing to drop what she was doing and spend that much time late at night trying to help us with a situation of that nature.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I placed an ANI about the Voice for Men article and the subsequent comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_mu... The result being:
"We cannot take action for off-Wiki discussions like this. However, an
"announcement" on WP:AN about something like this would have been a wise idead instead of ANI (but we all know now) - that we we can keep an eye on things. Attacking Wikipedia would be a detriment to their cause - so is potentially libelous statements about the Foundation's employees - dumb, dumb, dumb thing to do. However, by posting about it here, they know that we know. Be vigilant :-) "
I suppose what it does mean is that if insults are hurled about female editors off-wiki we can post announcements in WP:AN which begin,
"Based on this ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_mu... I to inform the community about..."
I also had some nice posts sent to me on my talk page.
P.S. I clicked on the link for WP:AN and found this little gem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Fly... Depressing but at least it's not all one-way traffic.
Marie
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:46:19 -0400 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Re: the below, yes, i was blocked in a situation I thought was biased compared to other blocks I've seen. (I didn't mention that originally it was a six month block but the community of mostly guys thought that was grossly unfair and it was reduced to two weeks.)
However, in general wikipedia is not half as bad as the Men's rights site you mentioned. And in Wikipedia there are "Community Sanctions" on too much conflict in men's rights areas. In fact we just had some problems with an individual with that bias and he was reminded of the sanctions and was stopped.
In general women tend to avoid a lot of issues in the larger world because we don't like conflict. And that's understandable given that when guys do it with each other its considered a team sport. But when women jump in the middle, even if they know the rules (which we don't always), they usually are going to be given a harder time, expected to work harder and do better to get half the respect. That's the nature of the reality we are trying to change throughout the world and wikipedia is just one part of that larger world.
We don't have to accept all the rules but we can't change them unless we have some engagement. Even if the engagement is "these rules are male-created and reflect male values/attitudes/etc. and we want and equal say in creating the rules."
To understand Wikipedia dispute resolution you really have to study this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Except in the worst cases of abuse, you don't need to go to ANI. When the problem is guys ignoring you or reverting you too much or whatever it is they are doing cause they think they can get away with it (including if that reason is that you are female), there are a variety of options. I've used them all at different times, with more or less success depending on circumstances.
CM
On 7/1/2014 10:03 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't I. I didn't realize the list had two Sarahs on it.
Third time lucky....
In a discussion about off-Wiki mentions of editors, I was making a comparison between Carol Moore's suspension which she mentioned here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html in answer to SlimVirgin (aka Sarah), in which Carol said:
"questioning behavior too aggressively off wikipedia evidently remains a
no no. I was once blocked for a week for asking an editor whether his overwhelming history of editing in articles about bondage of females was related to his obvious and annoying harassment of me on a noticeboard, after which I mentioned the issue on the Wikia Feminism page which I thought was a part of Wikipedia (duh). The latter evidently was the bigger "no no"."
...and some of the stuff in an article on A Voice for Men's website.
The third paragraph of this message http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004409.html therefore should have read (correction in capital letters):
I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if CAROL was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?
And LtPowers point that Wikipedia may simply not know is correct. Perhaps, editors just have to run the gauntlet / try and recruit more women / be a bit more pro-active about looking for and reporting off-wiki activities which break the rules and not just leave it to moderators. With that in mind I have reported the article to WP:ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide...
Marie
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:31:42 -0700 From: slimvirgin@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014 11:14 PM, "Sarah" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall someone on this list saying that
someone called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's meant) for an off-wiki comment. (Or something like that; I can't find the original.) I can't think of how that might apply to me, and Sarah Stierch has said it doesn't apply to her.
See this message from earlier on this thread:
On Jun 29, 2014 8:30 PM Eastern, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
My apologies it was Carol Moore responding to Sarah Stierch earlier on,
I mentioned it from memory, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html
If you follow Marie's link and then dig up the original message quoted at the link from "Sarah" you'll find it was SlimVirgin not Sarah Stierch (Marie apparently misattributed).
I haven't read all the mails, just did a bit of digging .
Okay, thanks, Jeremy. I don't follow what it's about, but the original comment wasn't made by me or about me, and the comment that seemed to be about Sarah Stierch was a misunderstanding.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
(: Yes, I think Keilana is a good apple.
I think anyone who's been around Wikipedia long enough will encounter a genuine emergency sooner or later, although in my experience there are many more fake or over-hyped "emergencies" than real emergencies.
In my IEGCom capacity, I can say I would be happy to consider interesting proposals for improving civility or decreasing hostility, and I think the Committee as a whole would too. IEGCom is a good group of people with a lot of experience and a lot of diversity, and usually has a good relationship with WMF in the forms of Siko and Anasuya. Please do put ideas into IdeaLab, or you can contact Siko or a Committee member if you want someone to talk privately with about your ideas before you put them into the lab.
Pine
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately sites like AVfM and its ilk are something that we really do have limited ability to directly address on Wikipedia, even though it's something that has a direct effect on the retention of our editors. I've made AVfM and similar sites way more times than I would like to remember, as have a lot of other editors who work in the topic area, and many women editors who identify their gender in general. Even though people can usually mitigate the effect it has on Wikipedia's content, I don't think anyone has come up with a remotely effective way to mitigate the effect it has on the targeted editor. I know quite a few people who have left the projects over stuff like this, and can honestly say the only reason I'm still around is because of the number of good friends I've made on the projects who I can rely on for emotional* support when I need to, as well as the fact that I occupy a position of significant societal privilege that lets me take off-wiki harassment and threats less seriously than people who aren't in my position can.
I've thought for years that the problem of off-wiki harassment through this and other means is something that the Foundation will eventually need to come up with some solution that at least partly mitigates its effects, or we'll just understandably lose droves of good editors active in topic areas targeted by it. I don't know what that solution is, although I found Lane Raspberry's recent IdeaLab proposal ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Community_support_services) that tried to address the issue to be interesting, and would encourage anyone with interesting or novel ideas about how to potentially help with this kind of issue bring them up. I can't guarantee any eventual funding decision, but even if you have an idea that needs monetary support to work, I know this kind of thing is of both interest to the Foundation and of interest to volunteers serving on WMF grant-making advisory bodies. (Or alternately, even if you just have an idea but don't have the bandwidth to help carry out a project about it, I'd encourage you to bring it up, since other interested people can connect with you about it and help you refine it, or even just run with it themselves.)
Best, Kevin Gorman
*And sometimes, other significant forms of support too. Emily/Keilana, someone I've met in real life once, recently spent well over an hour trying to contact local emergency services for me in a situation when my roomates and I needed to do so but couldn't safely do so. After I had asked for help but before I had fully explained what was going on, my wifi blipped off, and she was literally calling me within six second of me poofing from the internet.. and then spent a huge amount of time and frustration trying to resolve the situation. I can't really put in to words the sort of feeling provoked by having a Wikimedian who I know almost entirely from online collaboration willing to drop what she was doing and spend that much time late at night trying to help us with a situation of that nature.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I placed an ANI about the Voice for Men article and the subsequent comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_mu... The result being:
"We cannot take action for off-Wiki discussions like this. However, an
"announcement" on WP:AN about something like this would have been a wise idead instead of ANI (but we all know now) - that we we can keep an eye on things. Attacking Wikipedia would be a detriment to their cause - so is potentially libelous statements about the Foundation's employees - dumb, dumb, dumb thing to do. However, by posting about it here, they know that we know. Be vigilant :-) "
I suppose what it does mean is that if insults are hurled about female editors off-wiki we can post announcements in WP:AN which begin,
"Based on this ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_mu... I to inform the community about..."
I also had some nice posts sent to me on my talk page.
P.S. I clicked on the link for WP:AN and found this little gem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Fly... Depressing but at least it's not all one-way traffic.
Marie
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:46:19 -0400 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Re: the below, yes, i was blocked in a situation I thought was biased compared to other blocks I've seen. (I didn't mention that originally it was a six month block but the community of mostly guys thought that was grossly unfair and it was reduced to two weeks.)
However, in general wikipedia is not half as bad as the Men's rights site you mentioned. And in Wikipedia there are "Community Sanctions" on too much conflict in men's rights areas. In fact we just had some problems with an individual with that bias and he was reminded of the sanctions and was stopped.
In general women tend to avoid a lot of issues in the larger world because we don't like conflict. And that's understandable given that when guys do it with each other its considered a team sport. But when women jump in the middle, even if they know the rules (which we don't always), they usually are going to be given a harder time, expected to work harder and do better to get half the respect. That's the nature of the reality we are trying to change throughout the world and wikipedia is just one part of that larger world.
We don't have to accept all the rules but we can't change them unless we have some engagement. Even if the engagement is "these rules are male-created and reflect male values/attitudes/etc. and we want and equal say in creating the rules."
To understand Wikipedia dispute resolution you really have to study this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Except in the worst cases of abuse, you don't need to go to ANI. When the problem is guys ignoring you or reverting you too much or whatever it is they are doing cause they think they can get away with it (including if that reason is that you are female), there are a variety of options. I've used them all at different times, with more or less success depending on circumstances.
CM
On 7/1/2014 10:03 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't I. I didn't realize the list had two Sarahs on it.
Third time lucky....
In a discussion about off-Wiki mentions of editors, I was making a comparison between Carol Moore's suspension which she mentioned here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html in answer to SlimVirgin (aka Sarah), in which Carol said:
"questioning behavior too aggressively off wikipedia evidently remains
a no no. I was once blocked for a week for asking an editor whether his overwhelming history of editing in articles about bondage of females was related to his obvious and annoying harassment of me on a noticeboard, after which I mentioned the issue on the Wikia Feminism page which I thought was a part of Wikipedia (duh). The latter evidently was the bigger "no no"."
...and some of the stuff in an article on A Voice for Men's website.
The third paragraph of this message http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004409.html therefore should have read (correction in capital letters):
I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at work against them, if CAROL was suspended for her off-site comments then how is this permissible?
And LtPowers point that Wikipedia may simply not know is correct. Perhaps, editors just have to run the gauntlet / try and recruit more women / be a bit more pro-active about looking for and reporting off-wiki activities which break the rules and not just leave it to moderators. With that in mind I have reported the article to WP:ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide...
Marie
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:31:42 -0700 From: slimvirgin@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014 11:14 PM, "Sarah" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall someone on this list saying that
someone called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's meant) for an off-wiki comment. (Or something like that; I can't find the original.) I can't think of how that might apply to me, and Sarah Stierch has said it doesn't apply to her.
See this message from earlier on this thread:
On Jun 29, 2014 8:30 PM Eastern, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
My apologies it was Carol Moore responding to Sarah Stierch earlier on,
I mentioned it from memory, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html
If you follow Marie's link and then dig up the original message quoted at the link from "Sarah" you'll find it was SlimVirgin not Sarah Stierch (Marie apparently misattributed).
I haven't read all the mails, just did a bit of digging .
Okay, thanks, Jeremy. I don't follow what it's about, but the original comment wasn't made by me or about me, and the comment that seemed to be about Sarah Stierch was a misunderstanding.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Actually that wasn't too bad a closing reply, since too often real complaints are just ignored and there is no close.
Also, the good news is that *if* someone on wikipedia had linked to that article and said that "Sue Gardner is not good like this article says blah blah", there might be some hope of a sanction. Last fall one editor who linked to a truly libelous blog posting about me that included a wish that I and my family be gassed. Another editor filed an ANI on him and he did get a whole 48 hour block. Less than the 6th months I originally was given for less before the community objected, but there is some limit to the nastiness they can get away with.
On 7/2/2014 10:38 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
I placed an ANI about the Voice for Men article and the subsequent comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_mu... The result being:
"We cannot take action for off-Wiki discussions like this. However,
an "announcement" on WP:AN about something like this would have been a wise idead instead of ANI (but we all know now) - that we we can keep an eye on things. Attacking Wikipedia would be a detriment to their cause - so is potentially libelous statements about the Foundation's employees - dumb, dumb, dumb thing to do. However, by posting about it here, they know that we know. Be vigilant :-) "
I suppose what it does mean is that if insults are hurled about female editors off-wiki we can post announcements in WP:AN which begin,
"Based on this ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_mu... I to inform the community about..."
I also had some nice posts sent to me on my talk page.
P.S. I clicked on the link for WP:AN and found this little gem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Fly... Depressing but at least it's not all one-way traffic.
Marie
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:46:19 -0400 From: carolmooredc@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Re: the below, yes, i was blocked in a situation I thought was biased compared to other blocks I've seen. (I didn't mention that originally it was a six month block but the community of mostly guys thought that was grossly unfair and it was reduced to two weeks.)
However, in general wikipedia is not half as bad as the Men's rights site you mentioned. And in Wikipedia there are "Community Sanctions" on too much conflict in men's rights areas. In fact we just had some problems with an individual with that bias and he was reminded of the sanctions and was stopped.
In general women tend to avoid a lot of issues in the larger world because we don't like conflict. And that's understandable given that when guys do it with each other its considered a team sport. But when women jump in the middle, even if they know the rules (which we don't always), they usually are going to be given a harder time, expected to work harder and do better to get half the respect. That's the nature of the reality we are trying to change throughout the world and wikipedia is just one part of that larger world.
We don't have to accept all the rules but we can't change them unless we have some engagement. Even if the engagement is "these rules are male-created and reflect male values/attitudes/etc. and we want and equal say in creating the rules."
To understand Wikipedia dispute resolution you really have to study this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Except in the worst cases of abuse, you don't need to go to ANI. When the problem is guys ignoring you or reverting you too much or whatever it is they are doing cause they think they can get away with it (including if that reason is that you are female), there are a variety of options. I've used them all at different times, with more or less success depending on circumstances.
CM